When Byzantines are present, the application of Chair-Varshney rule requires that the position of the byzantine nodes is known, along with the flipping probability \(P_{mal}\) , an information that is rarely available, thus forcing the FC to adopt suboptimal fusion strategies. In [1]}, decision fusion is framed into a Neyman-Pearson setup and the asymptotic performance of the system when the number of nodes tends to infinity are analyzed as a function of the percentage of corrupted reports. As a result, the fraction of Byzantines impeding any correct decision is determined. Another noticeable aspect of [1]} is that the Byzantines are assumed to cooperate among them to infer the exact status of the system and corrupt their reports accordingly. The analysis carried out in [1]} is extended in [4]}, where the interplay between the strategy adopted by the Byzantines to attack the system and the fusion rule adopted by FC together with the local decision strategy used by honest nodes is modeled as a zero sum game, whose payoff is either the overall error probability or the divergence between the probability mass function (pmf) of the observed reports under the hypothesis that \(s = 0 \)  and \(s = 1\) . Even in [4]}, the authors determine the minimum fraction of Byzantines impeding any correct decision with both cooperative and noncooperative Byzantines.
